DOCSLIB.ORG

Unofficial Translation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unofficial Translation UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION BORGARTING COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT Pronounced: 23 January 2020 Case no.: 18-060499ASD-BORG/03 Appeal Presiding Judge Eirik Akerlie Judges: Court of Appeal Judge Hedda Remen Court of Appeal Judge Thom Arne Hellerslia Appellants Natur og Ungdom and Advocate Cathrine Hambro Föreningen Greenpeace Advocate Emanuel Feinberg Norden Co-Counsel: Associate Attorney Dagny Ås Hovind Interveners Besteforeldrenes Advocate Cathrine Hambro Klimaaksjon and Advocate Emanuel Feinberg Naturvernforbundet Co-Counsel: Associate Attorney Dagny Ås Hovind Respondent The Government of Advocate Fredrik Sejersted Norway, represented Co-Counsels: by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. Advocate Anders Flaatin Wilhelmsen Advocate Ane Sydnes Egeland UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION The case involves the question of whether the decision taken by the Royal Decree of 10 June 2016 on awarding production licences for petroleum on the Norwegian continental shelf in Barents Sea South and in Barents Sea South-East, the “23rd Licensing Round” is invalid. The decision was taken pursuant to the Norwegian Act of 29 November 1996 No. 72 relating to Petroleum Activities, Section 3-3. More specifically, the issues in the case are whether the decision is contrary to Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, whether the decision is contrary to Article 2 or Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention, as well as Article 93 or Article 102 of the Norwegian Constitution, and whether the decision is invalid because of procedural errors. The case raises in particular questions regarding the interpretation of Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution related to whether, and the extent to which, the provision grants rights, and how the provision may be applied to emissions of greenhouse gases. I Case background During the proceedings before the District Court, the parties prepared an agreed presentation of some of the facts in the case. The presentation is dated 30 October 2017 and was included in the District Court's judgment as part of the basis for decision in the case, see Section 9-9, subsection 1, second sentence, of the Norwegian Dispute Act. The parties continue to agree on relying on this presentation of some of the facts in the case, and it is therefore included in its entirety: 1 THE FRAMEWORKS FOR NORWEGIAN PETROLEUM ACTIVITIES AND THE 23RD LICENSING ROUND 1.1 Introduction On 10 June 2016, the Norwegian Government reached a decision by Royal Decree on awarding production licences in the 23rd Licensing Round pursuant to Section 3-3 of the Norwegian Petroleum Act. This case involves the validity of this decision. Ten production licences were awarded for a total of 40 blocks or sub-blocks. The production licences are called “Production Licences”, abbreviated as “PLs”. The ten production licences are called respectively PL 609C, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858 and 859. The production licences indicate precisely where petroleum production may occur. Seven of the production licences (14 blocks) are located in Barents Sea South and three of the production licences (26 blocks) are located in Barents Sea South-East. All the blocks are located north of Norway between 71° 30’ and 74° 30’ North latitude, and from 20° 40’ East longitude to the delimitation line facing the Russian Federation. 1.2 Opening of maritime areas for petroleum activities Prior to a decision on awarding production licences, a so-called “opening” of maritime areas for petroleum activities occurs, see section 3-1 of the Norwegian Petroleum Act. The provision imposes a requirement to weigh the various interests that apply in the area in question. For use in this weighing, “an assessment shall be made of the impact of the petroleum activities on trade, industry and the environment and of possible risks of pollution, as well as the economic and social - 2 - 18-060499ASD-BORG/03 UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION effects that may be a result of the petroleum activities”. The opening process means in practice that the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy conducts an impact assessment for the area on the Norwegian continental shelf that is planned to be opened, see Norwegian Regulations of 27 June 1997 No. 653 relating to petroleum activities (the Petroleum Regulations), Chapter 2. Effects on the environment and nature are among the impacts that are to be assessed. The opening of a new area for petroleum activities is submitted to the Storting, see section 6d of the Petroleum Regulations. An explanation must be provided in the case presentation of how the effects from opening a new area for petroleum activities and the submitted consultation statements have been evaluated, as well as the significance that has been assigned to these. The Storting decides on opening an area for petroleum activities on the basis of the submitted impact assessment. Barents Sea South (BS) was opened for petroleum activities in 1989. The impact assessment was submitted to the Storting in Report No. 40 (1988–1989), which the Storting concurred with in the consideration of Recommendation to the Storting No. 216 (1988–1989). A number of production licences have subsequently been awarded in Barents Sea South, and there are two areas in production: Snøhvit and Goliat. In addition, several discoveries have been made, including “Johan Castberg”, “Wisting” and “Alta/Gohta”. Barents Sea South-East (BSE) was opened for petroleum activities in 2013. The basis for this was the treaty with the Russian Federation from 2010 concerning maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean (the Delimitation Agreement). Among other things, the treaty meant that the maritime area east of the already opened Barents Sea South became available for Norwegian petroleum activities. The impact assessment was presented to the Storting in Report to the Storting No. 36 (2012–2013) and the supplementary report to this, Report No. 41 (2012–2013), and the Storting concurred during the consideration of Recommendation to the Storting No. 433 (2010–2011). The opening of Barents Sea South-East for petroleum activities is the first opening of a new area in 19 years. It is the first opening of a new area in the Barents Sea in 24 years. 1.3 Production licence and actual production of petroleum As mentioned, the case involves the validity of decisions to award production licences in Barents Sea South and Barents Sea South-East. A production licence grants the licensee exclusive rights to conduct surveys and search for and produce petroleum within the geographic area covered by the licence. The licensee becomes the owner of the petroleum that is produced. The licence also governs rights and obligations which the holders of a production licence have towards the Norwegian national government. The production licence supplements the provisions in the legislation and imposes detailed conditions for the activities. If commercially exploitable discoveries are made under a production licence, the process to facilitate actual production of the discovery in question is started. This process is governed by Chapter 4 of the Norwegian Petroleum Act and Chapter 4 of the Norwegian Petroleum Regulations. Among other things, a licensee must have a plan approved for development and operation, based on an impact assessment, before development and operation can be commenced, see Section 4-2 of the Petroleum Act. - 3 - 18-060499ASD-BORG/03 UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION Norwegian petroleum activities must occur in line with what is laid down in the management plan for the maritime area where the activities will take place. The purpose of the management plan is to provide a framework for creation of wealth through sustainable use of resources and ecosystem services, while maintaining the ecosystems’ structure, mode of operation, productivity and natural diversity. The applicable plan for the Barents Sea is in Report to the Storting No. 10 (2010–2011). 1.4 Particulars regarding 23rd Licensing Round The 23rd Licensing Round was started in August 2013. The then Government invited the companies on the Norwegian continental shelf to nominate areas they wished to include in the 23rd Licensing Round. The deadline for nominating areas expired in January 2014. The oil companies presented through the nomination process their view on which blocks they considered the most geologically promising. Forty companies submitted proposals for blocks they wished to include in the 23rd Licensing Round. The nominations comprised 160 blocks, of which 140 blocks were in the Barents Sea and 20 were in the Norwegian Sea. Eighty-six blocks were nominated by two or more companies. In February 2014, proposals for blocks to be included in the 23rd Licensing Round were sent out for consultation. It was proposed to announce in the 23rd Licensing Round a total of 61 blocks, divided into 7 blocks in the Norwegian Sea, 34 blocks in Barents Sea South-East and 20 blocks in the rest of Barents Sea South. For the newly opened area in Barents Sea South-East, the only input requested related to whether new, significant information had appeared after the Storting considered Report to the Storting 36 (2012–2013) and Report to the Storting No. 41 (2012– 2013). For other areas, the only input requested was that related to whether new, significant information had appeared after the respective management plan was adopted, see Report to the Storting No. 28 (2010–2011). After the expiry of the consultation deadline, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy considered the statements received. A proposal to the government was prepared regarding which areas should be included in the announcement and on what terms, together with an assessment of the consultation statements. The 23rd Licensing Round was announced in January 2015. The round comprised 57 blocks or parts of blocks. These were divided into 34 blocks in Barents Sea South-East, 20 blocks in Barents Sea South and 3 blocks in the Norwegian Sea. At the expiry of the application deadline in December 2015, 26 companies had submitted applications to the Ministry to be allocated a new area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Read the Whole Judgment
    SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY On 12 May 2016, the Supreme Court gave judgment in HR-2016-01015-A (case no. 2016/416), criminal case, appeal against judgment A (Counsel Arild Dyngeland) v. The public prosecution authority (Public Prosecutor Per Morten Schjetne) VOTING : (1) Justice Utgård: The case concerns sentence for obstruction of justice in the form of retaliation against five participants in civil cases, see the Penal Code 1902 section 132 a. (2) On 16 March 2015, Lofoten District Court gave judgment concluding as follows: "A, born 00.00.1976, is acquitted of the main indictment count IV. A, born 00.00.1976, is convicted of violation of the Penal Code section 132a subsection 1b, cf. subsection 2, cf. subsection 4 first penal option, the Penal Code section 390a and the Penal Code section 333, all considered against the Penal Code section 62 subsection 1 and section 63 subsection 2, and sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment. Four months of the sentence is to be suspended pursuant to the Penal Code sections 52- 54 with a probation period of 2 years. Credit for time in custody is 5 days." (3) The convicted person appealed to Hålogaland Court of Appeal against the findings of fact in the determination of guilt on all counts. Leave to appeal was granted for the counts concerning the Penal Code 1902 section 132a, but was refused for the counts concerning the Penal Code 1902 section 390a and section 333. The court of appeal stated that the sentence would be reviewed as a result of the partial admission of the appeal against the findings of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015 Contents
    SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY SUPREME COURT ANNUAL REPORT 2015 CONTENTS CONTENTS The Supreme Court in its bicentenary year 2015 Page 4 Summary of Supreme Court cases and procedure Page 6 The Supreme Court’s Bicentenary Page 7 - “HONOURABLE GENTLEMEN!” Page 8 - 200 years in two minutes – It began in a library Page 10 - The Bicentenary Meeting Page 12 Bicentenary celebration at Akershus castle Page 14 Open house in the Supreme Court Page 16 Justice Tjomsland captivates his audience Page 18 “The most difficult thing I have ever done as a researcher” Page 20 A powerful meeting with the lions Page 21 Law Truth Justice Page 22 Supreme Court commemorative stamp Page 23 A selection of cases from 2015 Page 24 The Supreme Court and International Law Page 29 Supreme Court Justices Page 31 Justice Liv Gjølstad looks back Page 33 The Supreme Court's administration Page 36 Rizwana Yedicam informs Page 41 New faces Page 42 County tour 2015 Page 43 Outside the courtroom Page 44 Statistics Page 46 Cover page: The Justice Building in Christiania 1903, which is now the Supreme Court Building. Photo: Unknown photographer Oslo Museum 2 3 Photo: Morten Brakestad SUPREME COURT SUPREME THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS BICENTENARY YEAR Under the Norwegian Constitution of 1814, the entertainment, etc. outside the building. year, judiciary service has carried on as usual, and Supreme Court is one of our three constitutional The event attracted an enthusiastic crowd. You can as such, 2015 has been a busy year with many bodies. However, it took time to establish a read more about the various events in the important cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnus Barefoot from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Magnus Barefoot From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the second Norwegian king named Magnus Olafsson. For the earlier Norwegian king, see Magnus the Good. Magnus Barefoot Drawing of a coin from the reign of Magnus Barefoot (with confused legend)[1] King of Norway Reign September 1093 – 24 August 1103 Predecessor Olaf III Successor Sigurd I, Eystein I and Olaf Magnusson Co-ruler Haakon Magnusson (until 1095) King of Dublin Reign 1102–1103 Predecessor Domnall Gerrlámhach Successor Domnall Gerrlámhach Born 1073 Norway Died 24 August 1103 (aged 29–30) near River Quoile, Downpatrick Ulster, Ireland Burial near St. Patrick's Church, Downpatrick, Ulster, Ireland Consort Margaret of Sweden Eystein I of Norway Issue Sigurd I of Norway Olaf Magnusson of Norway Ragnild Magnusdotter Tora Magnusdatter Harald IV Gille (claimed) Sigurd Slembe (claimed) Magnus Raude (claimed) Full name Magnús Óláfsson House Hardrada Father Olaf III of Norway Mother Tora?; disputed (see below) Religion Roman Catholicism Magnus Olafsson (Old Norse: Magnús Óláfsson, Norwegian: Magnus Olavsson; 1073 – 24 August 1103), better known as Magnus Barefoot (Old Norse: Magnús berfœttr, Norwegian: Magnus Berrføtt),[2] was King of Norway (as Magnus III) from 1093 until his death in 1103. His reign was marked by aggressive military campaigns and conquest, particularly in the Norse-dominated parts of the British Isles, where he extended his rule to the Kingdom of the Isles and Dublin. His daughter, Ragnhild, was born in 1090. As the only son of King Olaf Kyrre, Magnus was proclaimed king in southeastern Norway shortly after his father's death in 1093. In the north, his claim was contested by his cousin, Haakon Magnusson (son of King Magnus Haraldsson), and the two co-ruled uneasily until Haakon's death in 1095.
    [Show full text]
  • Handskrifter Av Norske Mellomalderlover Ved
    Magnus Rindal Handskrifter av norske mellomalderlover ved Nasjonalbiblioteket NB tema 8 Nasjonalbiblioteket/bokselskap.no Oslo 2020 Magnus Rindal: Handskrifter av norske mellomalderlover ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. NB tema 8, Nasjonalbiblioteket, Oslo 2020 ISBN: 978-82-7965-468-1 (digital, bokselskap.no), 978-82-7965-467-4 (epub), 978-82-7965-469-8 (mobi), 978-82-7965-470-4 (særtrykk) Teksten er lastet ned fra bokselskap.no Forord I 2024 er det 750 år sidan Magnus Lagabøtes landslov kom. Lova er overlevert i 39 handskrifter frå mellomalderen, og nokre få yngre. Dei fleste ligg i samlingar i Danmark og Sverige. Tre av mellomalderhandskriftene ligg i dag i norske samlingar, to ved Nasjonalbiblioteket og eitt ved Gunnerusbiblioteket i Trondheim. To av desse tre har vore i Noreg frå dei blei skrivne. Dei to eldste ligg ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. Eit hovudmål for denne boka er å kaste lys over dei handskriftene av norske mellomalderlover som ligg ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. Hovudvekta vil liggje på handskriftene frå mellomalderen, Ms.4° 1 og Ms.4° 317, som begge inneheld landslova. Dei blir grundig beskrivne, også med omsyn til innhald og språk. Ein del rettarbøter er overleverte i begge desse handskriftene, og for å lette lesinga er opplysningar om innhaldet gjevne to stader. Boka omfattar også dei 25 handskriftene av omsetjing av landslova til dansk, og andre handskrifter av norske lover. Innleiingsvis er det gjeve eit samla oversyn over dei norske lovene frå mellomalderen, som alle finst i avskrifter ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. Her har eg henta stoff også frå Rindal 2004 og Rindal og Spørck 2018, endå om det ikkje er særskilt nemnt.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Norwegian Legal Culture
    Exploring the Norwegian Legal Culture Held at the Faculty of Law at the University in Bergen 25th and 26th August 2011 by Professor Dr. juris Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde 1. An outline of the lectures • A brief introduction to Norwegian state formation from app. 800 till today • A brief introduction to legal culture • Exploring the Norwegian legal culture by using the legal cultural model 2. Norwegian state formation – Middle Ages • Norway as a territory and no state till app. 1200 – The four law territories: Gulating, Frostating, Eidsivating, Borgarting • The emergence of King and Church as state power from app. 900 • The civil wars from 1130 till 1240 • The strong state app. 1250 till 1350 • The union with Sweden from 1319, and with Denmark and Sweden from 1397 2. Norwegian state formation – Early Modern Period • The Black Plague and other plagues from 1350 till 1450 • The reformation in 1536 – Norway a Danish province • The slow recovery of state power from app. 1550 • The absolute kingdom from 1660 – Norway again an independent kingdom – The bureaucratic state 2. Norwegian state formation – Modern Period • The Norwegian Constitution of 1814 – Norway still independent, but now in union with Sweden • Introduction of the parliamentary system in 1884 – the liberal revolution • The Labour party in government from the 1930s and the introduction of the welfare state – the socialist revolution 3. Legal Culture • An analytical tool and not an entity to deduce legal rules from • The increased references to legal culture from the 1990s – The internationalisation of law – The European Council with the ECHR and the European Union with the ECJ • A label on a black hole of knowledge? 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Two EEA Courts’ – a Norwegian Perspective 1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives ‘The two EEA Courts’ – a Norwegian perspective 1 Dr. Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen, University of Bergen A. Introduction – the notion of ‘EEA Courts’ To most Norwegian lawyers, the term ‘the two EEA Courts’ would probably be understood as a reference to the EFTA Court and the Supreme Court of Norway rather than, as suggested here, to the EFTA Court and ECJ. The understanding of the ECJ as not only an EU but also an EEA Court of Justice has only slowly sunk in to the Norwegian legal community.2 However, not least due to the somewhat troubling prospects to the free movement of capital in the EEA offered by the ECJ’s application of Article 40 EEA in a recent string of cases, 3 appreciation of the ECJ as the gatekeeper for market operators from the EFTA States seeking judicial protec- tion in the EU appears to gain ground: If the ECJ embarks on an interpretation of EEA law which differs from its own interpretation of corresponding provisions of EU law, the result will be gradual undermining of the Agreements overall goal to extend the internal market to include the EFTA States. Thus, the fate of the EEA Agreement at long last hangs on its continued acceptance by the ECJ. Even acknowledging that the ECJ is to be understood as an EEA Court, most Norwegian lawyers would probably argue that this raises the number of EEA Courts to three – the Supreme Court of Norway, the EFTA Court and the ECJ.4 A recent survey of the applica- tion of EEA law in Norwegian courts 1994-2010 has revealed that lower Norwegian courts indeed do appear to see the Supreme Court as an EEA Court proper, taking its decisions into 1 Readers with command of Norwegian should be warned at the outset that this contribution draws heavily upon the more extensive account in the author’s report ‘EU/EØS-rett i norske domstoler’ [EU/EEA law in Norwegian Courts], Report commissioned by the Norwegian EEA Review Committee, Oslo 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Europe and the Nordic Collective-Bargaining Model the Complex Interaction Between Nordic and European Labour Law Europe and the Nordic Collective-Bargaining Model
    TemaNord 2015:541 TemaNord 2015:541 TemaNord Ved Stranden 18 DK-1061 Copenhagen K www.norden.org Europe and the Nordic Collective-Bargaining Model The Complex Interaction between Nordic and European Labour Law Europe and the Nordic Collective-Bargaining Model One of the special features of the Nordic countries is that the determination of wages and working conditions is largely left up to the negotiations between the social partners. The purpose of this report is to illuminate a number of the challenges faced by the labour-law systems of the Nordic countries in the light of an increasingly well-developed European law system. The first part of the report was prepared by Dr. Jur. Jens Kristiansen, the editor-in-chief, and focuses on a number of the general challenges facing the labour-law systems of the Nordic countries in the form of European rules and court decisions. The second part of the report was prepared by various representatives of employer and employee organisations in the Nordic countries and illustrates some of the challenges faced by the social partners in their interaction with the European court system and the way in which these challenges have been addressed in the individual countries. TemaNord 2015:541 ISBN 978-92-893-4177-6 (PRINT) ISBN 978-92-893-4179-0 (PDF) ISBN 978-92-893-4178-3 (EPUB) ISSN 0908-6692 TN2015541 omslag.indd 1 02-06-2015 11:20:51 Europe and the Nordic Collective-Bargaining Model The Complex Interaction between Nordic and European Labour Law Dr. Jur. Jens Kristiansen (ed.) Contributions by: Jens Kristiansen, Hans Tilly, Lena Maier Söderberg, Flemming Dreesen, Magnús Norðdahl, Christen Horn Johannessen, Hrafnhildur Stefánsdóttir, Gabriella Sebardt, Ane Kristine Lorentzen, Jari Hellsten, Jens Kragh og Ella Sjödin TemaNord 2015:541 Europe and the Nordic Collective-Bargaining Model The Complex Interaction between Nordic and European Labour Law Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Norway 2016
    SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY 2016 SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY - Annual Report 2016 1 CONTENTS The Supreme Court in 2016 4 Summary of Supreme Court cases and procedure 6 New Chief Justice 7 Retirement of the Chief Justice 7 Tore Schei - reflections after 30 years at the Supreme Court 8 Toril Marie Øie - her thoughts on taking up appointment as the new Chief Justice 10 Supreme Court procedure 12 From paper to tablet 16 A selection of cases 18 The Appeals Selection Committee - The heart of the Supreme Court 24 The Supreme Court and International Law 25 Supreme Court decisions 26 Justice Ingse Stabel resigns 28 New justice Espen Bergh 30 The Supreme Court's Administration 32 Merete Koren - secretary to the Chief Justice 36 County tour 2016 38 Law clerks on a study tour to Luxembourg 39 Outside the courtroom 40 External activities 41 Statistics 42 From the Supreme Court entrance hall, brass sculpture of a lion modelled by Lars Utne. Photo: Sturlason SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY - ANNUAL REPORT 2016 3 THE SUPREME COURT IN 2016 In 2015, the Supreme Court celebrated its Chief Justice Scheie’s retirement was duly celebrated. The main bicentenary and in 2016, yet another milestone event was the farewell ceremony on 29 February 2016 in the was reached. Tore Schei retired as Chief Justice Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber attended by the King, the President of the Norwegian Storting, the Norwegian Prime on 29 February 2016, after having been a Minister, the Minister of Justice and other invited guests. Supreme Court justice for exactly 30 years - to the Later that day, a reception was held in the Supreme Court day.
    [Show full text]
  • Eldre Norske Rettskilder- En Oversikt
    Kjersti Selberg Eldre norske rettskilder en oversikt 3. utgave Juridisk biblioteks skriftserie : 2 skriftserie biblioteks Juridisk Juridisk biblioteks skriftserie : 2 Kjersti Selberg Eldre norske rettskilder en oversikt 3. utgave Juridisk bibliotek Oslo 2013 Eldre norske rettskilder © Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo. Juridisk bibliotek 2013 ISSN 1893-9686 (online) ISBN 978-82-8037-030-3 (online) Ansvarlig redaktør: Randi Halveg Iversby Forsidebilde: © UiO/Hanne Baadsgaard Utigard 1 Eldre norske rettskilder Forord Det juridiske fakultetsbibliotek i Oslo flyttet i 1994 inn i nyrestaurerte lokaler i Domus Bibliotheca. Eldre deler av boksamlingen, som tidligere hadde vært spredt rundt på fakultetet, kunne plasseres i et nytt magasin i kjelleren, og det som siden 1972 hadde vært en egen avdeling for eldre juridisk og rettshistorisk litteratur, Rettshistorisk samling, fikk flytte inn i et fredet biblioteklokale i annen etasje i Domus Bibliotheca Boksamlingene inneholder betydelige mengder eldre norske rettskilder – i tillegg til det som finnes ved andre bibliotek. Som et ekstra hjelpemiddel til å finne frem i dette materialet laget jeg en enkel oversikt til bruk for kolleger i biblioteket og for meg selv, som da var bibliotekar ved Institutt for offentlig rett, med spesielt ansvar for Rettshistorisk samling. I 2002 ble listen i bearbeidet versjon utgitt i serien Det juridiske fakultetsbibliotek skriftserie som nr 16. En revidert og utvidet utgave ble publisert som nettdokument i DUO i 2010. Det er en oppdatering av denne som nå utgis i bibliotekets nye skriftserie. Biblioteket har skiftet navn til Juridisk bibliotek, bibliotekets skriftserie har endret navn tilsvarende og heter nå Juridisk biblioteks skriftserie. Overbibliotekar Randi Halveg Iversby har overtatt hovedansvaret etter mangeårig redaktør Pål Bertnes.
    [Show full text]
  • Lov Og Praksis
    Bøndenes våpenplikt – Lov og praksis Av Martin Teigen Hanssen Institutt for arkeologi, historie, kultur- og religionsvitenskap Historie/HIS350 2017 Forord Om noen hadde fortalt meg for fem år siden at jeg skulle levere en masteroppgave, er det en påstand jeg ikke ville tatt noe særlig seriøst. Men nå sitter jeg her i dag med et ferdig masterprosjekt. Når jeg flyttet fra det kalde nord til, i min måleskala, storbyen Bergen og skulle begynne på Masterstudiet, virket dette som et uoppnåelig prosjekt. Men iløpet av denne utfordrende prosessen har jeg lært utrolig mye, og har lært at ingenting er umulig så lenge man jobber for det. Å jobbe med kilder som er nesten 1000 år gamle og samtidig gå i dybden på et felt jeg tidligere hadde liten kunnskap om tidligere har vært en utrolig lærerik og interessant prosess, og håper at du som leser kan lære like mye som meg om bøndens våpenplikt og våpenting som jeg har. Jeg vil gi en spesiell takk til min veileder Geir Atle Ersland, som har vært et solid faglig anker, og alltid gitt raske og klare tilbakemeldinger. Jeg vil også takke mine medstudenter for gode diskusjoner og inspirasjon gjennom denne prosessen. Samtidig vil jeg og takke familie og venner som har vært godt støtte og hjelp gjennom denne prosessen. Innhold Forord ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 Introduksjon......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report Frafrom Koordineringsenheten the Coordinating Unit for Forvictims Ofre Forof Humanmenneskehandel Trafficking
    RapportReport frafrom Koordineringsenheten the Coordinating Unit for Victimsfor ofre forof Humanmenneskehandel Trafficking 2016 2016 Juli 2017 August 2017 B REPORT BY THE COORDINATING UNIT FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING Table of contents Summary 3 5 The rights of identified presumed victims 44 5.1 What rights do presumed victims have? .................. 44 1 The Coordinating Unit for Victims of Human Trafficking (KOM) 5 5.2 Why do many reject offers of assistance? ............... 44 1.1 A measure to improve coordination ............................. 5 5.3 Legal residence ................................................................. 45 1.2 Collaborating parties ........................................................ 6 5.3.1 Limited residence permits for victims of human 1.3 Mandate up for review ......................................................7 trafficking ........................................................................... 45 1.4 KOM’s situation report .......................................................7 5.3.2 Asylum application decisions where applicants have been identified as presumed victims .............. 47 2 KOM’s activities in 2016 9 5.3.3 Asylum centre residents ................................................ 50 2.1 Network operation and expertise development ..... 9 5.4 Assisted return and re-establishment ...................... 50 2.1.1 Meetings under the auspices of KOM .......................... 9 2.1.2 External meetings and seminars ..................................10 6 Criminal justice responses
    [Show full text]
  • The Succession and Coronation of Magnus Erlingsson
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives UNIVERSITY OF OSLO INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY, CONSERVATION AND HISTORY Dissertation for the degree of Master of Arts: Norwegian Kingship Transformed: the Succession and Coronation of Magnus Erlingsson (Depiction of Magnus Erlingsson, by Gerhard Munthe, 1899) Thomas Malo Tollefsen Spring 2015 1 2 Abstract This dissertation is an exploration of the succession and coronation of Magnus Erlingsson based upon three themes: Norwegian kingship in theory, Norwegian kingship in practise, and Norwegian kingship in context, and a search for points of similarity and contrast with European trends. In the first theme the focus of the analysis will be the coronation of Magnus Erlingsson, exploring this in two parts: the rules of kingmaking and the narration of Snorre in the Saga of Magnus Erlingsson, and motivations behind the coronation. In the second theme the focus will again be on the coronation of Magnus Erlingsson. First, this dissertation attempts to put together a workable timeline from when Magnus is acclaimed king in 1161 to his coronation in either 1163 or 1164. Then the analysis shifts to the coronation itself, before it falls on the coronation oath and the Letter of Privileges to see what they can tell us about Magnus’s kingship, and the Law of Succession and what it meant for the future. In the third theme this dissertation attempts to contextualise Magnus’s kingship and this chapter will focus on two things: acquisition, and by extension how to legitimise your rule once it has been acquired, and succession to kingship.
    [Show full text]